Barack Obama inherited a bankrupt economy, a bankrupt government, and a bankrupt foreign policy. This time last year, he and his electorate faced a sustainability crisis straight out of an econ textbook: Under George W. Bush, there were just too many precious resources going out, and far too few coming back home. We chose Obama largely because he recognized this, and so it was out with the unblinking hedgehog and in with the eye-darting fox — just like we swapped out Hoover for FDR the last time we experienced this kind of economic calamity.

To his credit and from the very start of his presidency, Barack Obama has shown a great eagerness to confront these realities. That did not mean cuts across the board when ongoing crises did not allow them, nor did it mean a fire-sale mentality to existing responsibilities, like Iraq and Afghanistan. But it did mean that his entire presidency would be a game of catchup. And while we've heard plenty of arguments about the sustainability of health care — pay now, save lives later — here's a question not enough people are asking yet: Does America actually stand to gain anything from these expensive, seemingly open-ended wars beyond the "responsible end" that Bush and Dick Cheney weren't sane enough to care about? Worse still: Will the rest of the world end up profiting from our blood and money?

Bush and Cheney were sane enough to listen to the generals' counterinsurgency plans for Iraq, so our fate there now seems more "conflict" than "war" — especially after one of the still-fragile country's quietest months after we invaded it. That may have been some wonderful political timing, but Afghanistan won't be nearly that convenient — and Obama knows it. On Tuesday night, he gave the best offer he could to dial down his other big inheritance: thirty thousand troops for eighteen months. It's what he's decided he can afford to pay the piper here, and given Obama's supremely somber delivery of that news, I get the sense that our president is thinking, deep down, that he'll need more to pay for this war.

But again, let's be honest with ourselves here: We did not elect the man to do whatever it takes to win in Afghanistan. We elected him to unwind our intervention in a responsible manner. Crafty politician that he is, Obama was smart enough to set low enough standards for his administration to claim "victory" by the summer of 2011 or so. Between finding terrorists where there aren't really any ("We must deny Al Qaeda a safe haven"), staving off an imminent insurgent takeover ("We must reverse the Taliban's momentum"), and building an Afghan army rather than a nation ("I reject this course"), you can check off success well before our alleged deadline.

In political terms, then, Obama's speech was a win. But in practical terms, his plan is not, because it won't really secure Afghanistan — given our multiple bankruptcies, we can't afford to. Can I offer a better way out? I can only offer a frightening array of potential counterparties to the proposed settlement, a group of regional powers Obama has, to date, studiously avoided referencing.

Good example: In the speech, Obama delineated the many ways why Afghanistan should not be considered the second coming of Vietnam ("a broad coalition of forty-three nations... we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency... the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan"), but he avoided mentioning the most obvious difference between the two scenarios: our enemies in Afghanistan aren't backed up by an opposing superpower. Indeed, the rising great powers of the region (China, India, Turkey, Russia, Iran) all have strong vested interests in our success.

The reason why Obama neglects to mention any regional interests like Pakistan's? Admitting the larger logic of regionalization would make too painfully obvious the nature of our current strategic bankruptcy. Because it would suggest that the only "victory" to be found would be "won" by those neighboring powers who did nothing to stabilize the situation. In other words, their "treasure" and our "blood."

Another good example: China is in the process of sinking $3.5 billion into Afghanistan to exploit one of the last remaining copper reserves on the planet. And how many deaths in Afghanistan for the People's Liberation Army? Zero. Will China step in to protect the largest single foreign investment in Afghanistan's history? You bet — but only after fighting the Taliban to the very last American soldier it could muster.

Feel ripped off? On a gut level, you should. Bankruptcy is all about making transparent your overleveraged situation and dealing with all interested parties in a pragmatic fashion. We are being denied such honesty from an administration that, much like its most recent Democratic predecessor, has genuine vision on global economics but a complete lack of strategic imagination on global security.

Obama dished out a whole lotta realism on Tuesday night, the financial sort those nasty neocons never admit — and quite frankly do not understand. But he did not come clean on what could be done to process this bankruptcy with more honor, less cost, and more strategic intelligence. There will be many among you who wish to assume Obama administration officials are actively pulling these strings behind closed doors. They may very well be doing just that. But then Obama should have admitted this, if only to apply some international pressure on these states to do the right thing. Because, for now, he's still doing the best he can.